Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6578686" data-attributes="member: 82106">Its all in the framing of the challenge. The premise is simply that any worthwhile conflict must entail a number of checks in order to be suitably dramatic and challenging. Its very easy to ascertain that this criteria has always existed in D&D because you would never find a combat system acceptable that allowed the DM to simply say "roll a d20 and if you pass the check you win, otherwise you're all defeated!" Its just too course for the focus of the game. So, if a challenge cannot support between four a twelve checks, then it isn't a challenge! It might be PART of a greater challenge, or maybe its just a bit of color or framing. 4e isn't averse to the concept of a lone skill check either, it just doesn't have a ton of weight. This could for instance be quite common in a dungeon where PCs could find a trap or secret door with a single check. Whether they do or don't isn't going to drastically change the plot in most cases. It might decide whether they find the stash of healing potions or take some damage and have to spend a surge, but its not super critical. Its quite feasible for a DM to just say "well, you run into a small complex here, we'll make exploring it an SC. If you succeed you find your way to a concealed treasure, each failure costs the characters an HS as they run into a trap!" I guess you could complain that failure 'always' means the party ran into 3 traps whereas if you mapped it all out they might find no treasure and still avoid all the traps, but you're only going to be in this scenario ONE TIME. The range of results you can get all fall within the logical spectrum of possible outcomes. There's always a way to restructure it to avoid those problems if you really want. The failures could provoke a special 'make this check to avoid the trap' check. Now any conceivable result of playing things out in detail has a corresponding outcome in the SC.As for 'level appropriate check', that's not exactly true. It will require a check appropriate to the level of the challenge. If you wish to run a sandbox in which parties can run up against challenges that are of widely varying levels 4e isn't going to stand in your way, the mechanics are perfectly capable of handling this. Of course PCs will mostly fail challenges more than 5 levels beyond them, but that's what you WANT if you have a sandbox presumably...In any case, I don't consider it 'illusionism' in any way shape or form. The players are QUITE AWARE of how 4e works. The narrative will reflect the mechanics of the challenge and its just a matter of proper framing to see to it that it 'makes sense'. It may not conform to your notion of process-sim, but that's an entirely different topic.</blockquote>

Verification